Human Options at A Glance

Originally posted by Penguin
I personally really welcome your presence here as reasoned and reasonable theist. I have enjoyed the thread although I have only read it today and not had the time to take part.

I would like to pick you up on this bit:

[b]And I was asking honest questions trying to understand your view. I think that's probably a lot better than what you get from a lot ...[text shortened]... s apply the same reasoning to your arguments for your god.

Does that help at all?

Penguin.

I personally really welcome your presence here as reasoned and reasonable theist. I have enjoyed the thread although I have only read it today and not had the time to take part.

This seems high praise, indeed. Thanks.

If you think about your attitude to those gods, I think you will understand our position about yours. Do you reject the gods themselves? I would guess 'no' because you don't believe they exist. Do you reject any arguments for those gods? I would guess 'yes' because you don't find them to be convincing arguments. All we do is apply the same reasoning to your arguments for your god.

Does that help at all?

Yes. No, really, I do get that, and I was even expecting someone to mention this. The actual answers would be yes, I would reject these gods AND any argument for them because I don't believe they exist. No semantic games like, "I can't possibly reject them because I don't believe they exist." Well, I DO reject them, exactly because I do not believe they exist. I do understand the position of most atheists here, but I don't understand this, this seeming reluctance on the part of atheists to actually 'reject' God. I reject things I do not believe every day. To NOT reject something because you say it's impossible to reject because you do not believe it is just semantics to me and frankly, it smacks of some kind of 'gaming the system'** to me. I reject these polytheistic gods *precisely because* I don't believe in them.

I don't mean to repeat the entire thread, but this was really the focus of my participation in this thread, to get some reasonable explanation of why atheists can't seem to simply reject something they do not believe in, because I don't have a problem doing so. Why is the atheist position so different?

** I do not mean to imply that all atheists are 'gaming the system'. Some could be, sure, but I'm not devolving into stereotypes here. What I mean by this is that by using semantics to avoid actually rejecting God seems like an excuse, although I suspect most atheists would be anywhere on the spectrum from shocked to insulted that I would say that. And this 'reluctance' to actually give voice to their rejection of God, which is seemingly restricted to atheists (since others don't seem to have a problem rejecting that which they do not believe in), AND their almost universal statement that (paraphrased) "It's impossible to reject something I do not believe in" just makes me wonder "what is going on here?" because as I have said numerous times now, others do not seem to have this problem rejecting that which they do not believe in. I guess I'm trying to get to the root of this apparent conflict in reasoning and see if maybe, just maybe, there is some kind of "original source" like Dawkins may have once said this, or something, to explain why only atheists take this position.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Hey don't put yourself down.

You're not spineless.

😛

😛 yourself.

😀

Originally posted by Penguin
Surely Hinduism counts? They have thousands of gods!

http://www.polytheism.net/ also mentions several other eastern religions. Polytheism is certainly not dead.

Polytheism - Modern World
Polytheism still represents much of the world today. Except for the monotheistic (belief in one God) religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, most of the worl ...[text shortened]... nal salvation is possible for those seeking a reconciled relationship with the one true God.

Yes, but let's please make a distinction between non-dualism and polytheism. To say that buddhists are polytheistic seems to be stretching the definition a bit, unless you're talking about some sect of buddhism I am not familiar with (not familiar with Mahayana Buddhism, for instance).

You do seem to sum up Christians' problem with polytheism nicely in the second paragraph you quoted though. This is precisely my problem with it/reason why I do not believe it, and thus precisely why I reject it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, but let's please make a distinction between non-dualism and polytheism. To say that buddhists are polytheistic seems to be stretching the definition a bit, unless you're talking about some sect of buddhism I am not familiar with (not familiar with Mahayana Buddhism, for instance).

You do seem to sum up Christians' problem with polytheism nicely in ...[text shortened]... ly my problem with it/reason why I do not believe it, and thus precisely why I reject it.

Hinduism, not Buddhism.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]Originally posted by Proper Knob
"So how does one discern between 'Real Faith' and, I guess, 'Fake Faith'?"

Faith: "Noun. Strong belief or trust in someone or something." Merriam-Webster; "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something." Oxford Dictionaries; "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction o ...[text shortened]... 3:36 The phrase "Real Faith and Fake Faith" represents a distinction without a difference. -Bob[/b]

A very informative post, but it doesn't seem to help me. This is what Suzianne said -

'When one obsesses on faith and starts believing, for example, that 'God' is telling them to kill people, yeah, that's wrong, but that's not real faith, either.'

Real faith, not real faith? How does one know or make the distinction?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Hinduism, not Buddhism.

PK, please. I'm not RJH, so don't treat me like that.

I know Penguin started off with the example of Hinduism, probably because it is most likely the most popular polytheistic religion worldwide, but my post is trying to draw a distinction between non-dualism (such as put forth in Buddhism, primarily, and some other eastern religions) and polytheism. I was focusing on other parts of his post (which I DID read, apparently contrary to what you think), like:

http://www.polytheism.net/ also mentions several other eastern religions. Polytheism is certainly not dead.

and

Polytheism characterizes the beliefs of Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism in the East, and also contemporary tribal religions in Africa and the Americas.

I was just saying to call Buddhists especially polytheistic seems to be stretching the point (I'm saying let's not confuse non-dualism with polytheism, as some other posters here have tried to make that connection before), since I would (and have) call Buddhists atheists, and certainly not theists of ANY 'kind'. (Again, I did leave a disclaimer, in case Mahayana Buddhism is indeed actually polytheistic, which I do not know for a fact, not being familiar with them.)

I do understand that Hinduism is certainly polytheistic. I wasn't saying it wasn't. I'm not that dense.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A very informative post, but it doesn't seem to help me. This is what Suzianne said -

'When one obsesses on faith and starts believing, for example, that 'God' is telling them to kill people, yeah, that's wrong, but that's not real faith, either.'

Real faith, not real faith? How does one know or make the distinction?

Suggest you ask Suzi to clarify her meaning in context. Anyone claiming "God is telling them to kill people" may be acting under Demon Possession. The simple faith of believing in Christ has nothing even remotely to do with "obsessing".

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A very informative post, but it doesn't seem to help me. This is what Suzianne said -

'When one obsesses on faith and starts believing, for example, that 'God' is telling them to kill people, yeah, that's wrong, but that's not real faith, either.'

Real faith, not real faith? How does one know or make the distinction?

Well, in this particular case, it's easy. God cannot sin. To convince someone to kill someone is sinful. Ergo, God wouldn't do it. Therefore, using faith to explain 'voices in your head' (especially those advocating sinful behavior) is NOT real faith. Perhaps I should have just said "It's not faith", and left off the qualifier "real". I added it so I would not be misunderstood, my point was initially that yes, there are people who become 'faith fanatics'... I was saying that is not 'real faith'. Oh well, nice try at not being misunderstood, I guess.

Originally posted by Suzianne
PK, please. I'm not RJH, so don't treat me like that.

I know Penguin started off with the example of Hinduism, probably because it is most likely the most popular polytheistic religion worldwide, but my post is trying to draw a distinction between non-dualism (such as put forth in Buddhism, primarily, and some other eastern religions) and polytheism. I ...[text shortened]... that Hinduism is certainly polytheistic. I wasn't saying it wasn't. I'm not that dense.

Treat you like what?

It was only a few posts ago you were stating you knew of no polytheistic societies. Also, the text didn't name all variations of Buddhism, just a specific one.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Suggest you ask Suzi to clarify her meaning in context. Anyone claiming "God is telling them to kill people" may be acting under Demon Possession. The simple faith of believing in Christ has nothing even remotely to do with "obsessing".

Yes. That was my whole point. 'Obsessing' is not 'faith'.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, in this particular case, it's easy. God cannot sin. To convince someone to kill someone is sinful. Ergo, God wouldn't do it. Therefore, using faith to explain 'voices in your head' (especially those advocating sinful behavior) is NOT real faith. Perhaps I should have just said "It's not faith", and left off the qualifier "real". I added i ...[text shortened]... . I was saying that is not 'real faith'. Oh well, nice try at not being misunderstood, I guess.

God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac. Genesis 22:1-2

Or does that not count?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Treat you like what?

It was only a few posts ago you were stating you knew of no polytheistic societies. Also, the text didn't name all variations of Buddhism, just a specific one.

I suggest maybe you get on the bandwagon and stop treating me like your 'run of the mill' typical Christian. Some atheists here have stated that it's nice to see a theist who has some reasonable ideas. Come in from out of the cold, PK.

When I said that "If there are polytheistic societies out there, I don't know of them", my meaning was similar to Matthew 7:23 when Jesus said, "I never knew you."

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." -- Matthew 7:22-23, KJV

So basically, PK, I'm asking you to cut me just a little, tiny bit of slack here. I'm not the typical, redneck "My way or the highway!" Christian. I have some bigger ideas, some actually worth talking about. To call me out on poor grammar usage perhaps isn't the best use of your time.

That's all I'm saying. And maybe if you'd read and try to absorb some of what I'm saying, instead of picking at me for subtle errors in my 'phrasing', maybe you'd see that.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
God told Abraham to kill his son Isaac. Genesis 22:1-2

Or does that not count?

Do you even imagine a world where context has anything to do with the situation?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Do you even imagine a world where context has anything to do with the situation?

Feel free to explain it to us. While you're at it, explain the context within your literal interpretatin of the OT for the various places where He sanctions mass killing and genocide; and how that is all supposed to square with Suzianne's comments.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I suggest maybe you get on the bandwagon and stop treating me like your 'run of the mill' typical Christian. Some atheists here have stated that it's nice to see a theist who has some reasonable ideas. Come in from out of the cold, PK.

When I said that "If there are polytheistic societies out there, I don't know of them", my meaning was similar to Matt ...[text shortened]... t I'm saying, instead of picking at me for subtle errors in my 'phrasing', maybe you'd see that.

I'm asking you questions with respect to what you write on this forum, it's not my fault if you are incapable of articulating yourself properly.